The US declared independence from England in 1776. George Washington became President in 1789. In between, we had the Continental Congress, the Articles of Confederation, and essentially 13 little nations with a common coin and army.

These things don't always work flawlessly the first time. Give the Egyptians some time, and be thankful that their military seems to be big on the Rule of Law.

Why are people so shocked an appalled at this? Revolutions aren't one-shot deals, and then everything is fairies and roses. Look at the two bbiggies: America went through a major evolution in the idea of democracy in the first 15 years after the Declaration of Independance (roughly, I don't recall exactly how long the Articles of Confederation where in place), and nearly a century later killed millions settling the final balance between states and federal power. France went through a half-century, two republics, two Empires, and two monarchies before they got things settled down reasonably well; but were STILL tweaking the process into the 50's when de Gaulle did basically what the Egyptian Army is doing now.

If Egypt has a Washington / de Gaulle figure, a military leader who can use the Army to gain leadership, and then remove the ability to do so right after that, then they will probably be alright. But it's going to be decades before Egypt, Libya, and Syria have this sorted out.

/Algeria and Tunisia might actually be further along in this process, Morocco seems to be there. Turkey is in the final stages of this (I think constitutional revision is coming, rather than revolution), Iraq is a huge mess, and Iran needs its own new revolution. Israel seems to be going in the other direction, towards a democratic theocracy/apartheid state

what_now:But he was democratically elected. You can't have a democracy if you decide "Oh, I don't like that guy. We'll just have the military oust him".

You elected a bad guy? You get a do over in 4 years.

There is a difference between "I don't like your public policy, so here's a coup" and "You're systematically eliminating anyone in government that could say no to you and rewriting the Constitution to suit your needs, while organizing attacks on Coptics and other Muslim sects."

Tommy Moo:What started all this? Does anyone remember? Was he cracking down on dissent? Was he ignoring the needs of the poor? I thought this was the guy that got elected by the people just a couple of years ago.

A series of decisions and statement by Morsi that show a pattern of consolidating his power toward a theocratic dictatorship. Back in Nov. he declared his decisions not subject to judicial review. That was straw that broke the camel's back. Protests began again and the opposition began to solidify after that rather brazen power grab.

Since then there have been many protests and the two sides have not exactly been coming together. There has been violence between protesters and counter-protesters. Morsi has done a number of additional questionable and controversial things which for brevity I won't list here. The crisis has come to a head recently is because the opposition planned a mega protest in Tahir square for Jun 30 and they have gotten, by some reports, more people there than the protests that brought down Mubarak.

The turnout was likely fueled by the fact that Morsi gave a speech a few days earlier where he was expected to address the opposition's concerns but instead the speech turned out to be a rambling two and a half hour long middle finger to them. He also quoted some really obviously cooked stats about how the economy has been getting better under his rule. That probably turned some fence sitters over to the opposition since it is apparent to everyone in Egypt that their economy has been getting worse.

what_now:FrancoFile: Tommy Moo: What started all this? Does anyone remember? Was he cracking down on dissent? Was he ignoring the needs of the poor? I thought this was the guy that got elected by the people just a couple of years ago.

And then changed the constitution to make Egypt a semi-theocracy.

Right. It's almost like when you elected the leader of the "Muslim Brotherhood" you'd get religious laws. I understand that this guy is over reaching and needs to go, and I also get that Egypt isn't going to turn into a democratic state overnight, but the people who are all "WOOOO DEMOCRACY WORKS" are farking crazy.

I look at this as more like the transition between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

durbnpoisn:I need a few questions answered - and I'm serious about this, because I am completely lost on this, thanks to the crap reporting.

1. How did this guy get to be President? Was he truly elected?2. What's he done to piss off millions of people in his country, including the military?3. Why does the media keep saying they are a "key ally"4. How much oil do the have, and how much are the selling to the US.5. Who is this fight between (that is, are the protesters the Muslims, or the other side)?

1. He was fairly elected. His party is the Muslim Brotherhood, which many people - including Egyptians - feel are hardline Islamists2. He declared that the constitution didn't apply to him, and cancelled all elections for the foreseeable future.3. Egypt is a strategically important, relatively pro-West, mostly Muslim-but-less-hardline-fundamentalist than many states in the area.4. Dunno but Suez is a pretty important trade route5. The army, moderate Muslims, Coptic Christians and millions of populace at large vs. a minority of pro-Morsi extremists.

This is all courtesy of a Coptic friend of mine in Cairo and includes his biases. The Copts have been periodically hassled and oppressed by hardline Islamists, so they're extremely anti-Morsi. Interesting he loves the US, but feels that Obama is being too supportive of Morsi.

Satanic_Hamster:DarnoKonrad: No it's not. Morsi got a majority of votes and his party got a majority of seats. That means you make the rules. And I wouldn't be quick to *assume* the protestors represent a popular movement.

Getting 50.01% of the vote doesn't mean you can have all your opponents executed then raped.

I was going to say something... CNN has been spelling it that way for the past few days, I submitted it as an error and received this reply:

Greetings,

Thank you for contacting CNN. We appreciate your input regarding our coverage. According to the Foreign Ministry, Mohamed Morsy is the preferred spelling of Egypt's first democratically elected president. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,CNN.com

So apparently CNN is saying that every other media outlet in the world is spelling it wrong.

His name is محمد محمد مرسى عيسى العياط . All of those different spellings are different ways of transliterating Arabic letters. Since there is no formal and universal method for doing that all of those spellings are acceptable.

Anyway, as for all the "but, but democracy" stuff, that's irrelevant and I wish Americans could get that through their thick heads. The Nazis were democratically, too. The important thing isn't democracy, it's liberty - democracy is only important in as much as it fosters and protects liberty.

Democracy is the best system around for giving the people what they want, but it doesn't insure they want the right things. If they want liberty, they will get it. If they want a dictator that will suspend freedoms and oppress a minority, that's what they'll get. If they want violence and terror (like when we gave the Palestinians the vote), they'll get that.

Democracy is not an unadulterated good. It can often be a source of great evil. So stop with the "democracy!" thing and realize Morsi was an oppressive dictator, however he got power, and needed to go.

Oh no, Morsi can't just fark the people of Egypt consequence-free because he happened to win an election. It's so awful. Elections are consent to anything the elected person chooses to do and no one should ever object because reasons.

Somacandra:chumboobler: Why are they calling this a coup? It seems to me that the military is enforcing the will of the people. If they don't hold free elections afterwards it could then be considered a coup. Right now it looks like the military is more interested in public safety than taking power.

If in the United States, if the Joint Chiefs of Staff announced that the Constitution is being suspended and installed Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court as the interim President, we in the U.S. would call that a coup d'etat.

It all depends. If the president had just declared that he had amended the constitution so that the supreme court could no longer review his actions and granted himself vast new authority rendering the both other branches of government effectively powerless, then we might not be so hasty to call military intervention a coup d'etat. At least in the short term, I don't think most people would consider it a coup unless the military didn't have a plan for restoring the constitution and holding new elections.

The problem with the legitimacy issue and comparing it to a stable democracy is that Morsi was actively trying to undermine the process that put him in office. He rewrote the constitution and was well on the way to making himself President-for-life. That's not how democracy works, the majority doesn't get to run roughshod over the minority.

Not ousting Qaddafi: Islamic terrorist left in power.Ousting Qaddafi: destabilizes North AfricaIntervene in Syria: Unauthorized reckless foreign policyNot intervene in Syria: Islamic terrorist left in power and weakness shown towards Russia

If Obama announced he discovered a cure for cancer, the R's would complain about 'government intrusion in the private sector' and 'job losses in the medical profession'. Tomorrow they would be asking how long did he know how to cure cancer, why didn't he announce it sooner and how many Americans died because of his treacherous secrecy?

KarmicDisaster:Who are we supposed to be rooting for here again? I need a scorecard to tell the sides apart. One weird thing about all those people demonstrating; no women. Any women venturing out would be attacked and raped by either side; what a great culture, huh? Really hard to sympathize with either point of view.

Horseshiat. There are lots of women in the anti-Morsi contingent. They are in pictures and interviews I've seen and heard in Western media.

RealAmericanHero:One group wants a secular democracy, and the other group wants a fundamentalist Islamist dictatorship. I don't see how it's hard to pick a side, unless you are really suggesting everyone anti-Morsi is a rapist.

durbnpoisn:I need a few questions answered - and I'm serious about this, because I am completely lost on this, thanks to the crap reporting.

1. How did this guy get to be President? Was he truly elected?2. What's he done to piss off millions of people in his country, including the military?3. Why does the media keep saying they are a "key ally"4. How much oil do the have, and how much are the selling to the US.5. Who is this fight between (that is, are the protesters the Muslims, or the other side)?

1. There were some reports of rigging in the election. Of course they were also stopping Mubarak's hand picked successor being blocked. Then there was all the measures to block more secular candidates from being voted. Throw in a heavy dose of voter fraud and intimidation, there was a few problems. Of course it was their first election too.

2. The military in general are a bit annoyed by the massive crack down on civil freedoms, violent crackdown on protesters, Then there was the laws Morsi created and executively signed into office to give himself more and more powers to go after anyone he dislikes. Add to that the general dislike of Islamist Governments in the region, the collapse of the economy and tourism, etc. has led to a bad time for Morsi.

3. Egypt is a key ally in the region. They have the Suez Canal, they import a large amount of military hardware, particularly tanks, weapons, aircraft etc. They also a been a stabilizing force in the region for the past 30 years.

4. Egypt isn't a massive oil producing country. They only export a relatively small amount of oil onto the market.

5. There are Muslims on both sides. It is a predominately Muslim country, with a large Coptic minority. The Muslim Brotherhood though would probably be the more radical of the groups, with talks about introducing Sharia law and solidifying the power back into the hands of Morsi. The protestors for the most part don't want that, nor the policies that have collapsed the economic engine of the country.

Muhammad Badie (Arabic: محمد بديع Muḥammad Badīʿ, IPA: [mæˈħæmmæd bæˈdiːʕ]) (born 1943) is the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood.[1] He has headed the Egyptian branch of the international Islamist organization since 2010. Before becoming general guide, Badi'e had been a member of the group's governing council, the Guidance Bureau, since 1996.

Mohammed Khairat Saad El-Shater[1] (Arabic: محمد خيرت سعد الشاطر, IPA: [mæˈħæmmæd ˈxæjɾæt ˈsæʕd eʃˈʃɑːtˤeɾ]; born 4 May 1950) is an Egyptian engineer, businessman and Islamist political activist. He was the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate for the Egyptian presidential election in 2012 before disqualification by the election commission. Previously, he was the deputy chairman ("deputy supreme guide") of the Brotherhood.

Seriously, what is the beef that the Egyptian protesters have with Morsi?I've been trying to keep abreast of the situation, and I fully acknowlege how serious it is. They're just massing together in a huge blob, stirring up trouble unnecessarily. The whole thing seems a bit fishy to me. Sure, I know his budget is filled with pork, which makes it hard to make ends meet.Is murdering him really a viable solution? Acting like a bunch of gang-bangers will only undermine their cause in the international media. I can understand why people don't trust the Muslim Brotherhood; I've been to several of their parties, and they were all just sausage-fests. I worry that if the Egyptian citizens go to battle against the Egyptian armed forces, they'll be like lambs led to slaughter, and Egyptian medics will only be able to provide meatball surgery on the survivors, and that would be simply terrible. I'll be frank, if Hillary Rodham Clinton were still the secretary of state, she could go there and deliver a solution, because she's a woman who knows how to bring home the bacon, but I'm sure some of you doubt that some crabby old hag is capable of accomplishing anything. You're all just full of boloney! Maybe John Kerry will give it a shot, doggedly working day and night until peace is established, or maybe he'll just wing it. I wish some moderate writer in the Middle East, maybe someone like Salmon Rushdie, would speak out on this issue; unfortunately, they're all too chicken. I guess they just don't want to gamble when the steaks are this high. Finding a peaceful solution is nothing to knock, worst-case-scenario, Morsi will just duck the issue and run off to retire in Turkey. But the bottom line is, violent protests are not the answer to the Egyptian problem; I would do anything for my love of freedom, but I won't do that.If any of you farkers want to discuss this with me, my e-mail address is in my profile; just don't fill up my inbox with spam.

what_now:netweavr: Tommy Moo: What started all this? Does anyone remember? Was he cracking down on dissent? Was he ignoring the needs of the poor? I thought this was the guy that got elected by the people just a couple of years ago.

He was turning the nation into a terrorist factory. He was also exploiting the countries resources for Western-interests.

Basically he was playing both sides against the middle. The middle being the Egyptian people.

But he was democratically elected. You can't have a democracy if you decide "Oh, I don't like that guy. We'll just have the military oust him".

You elected a bad guy? You get a do over in 4 years.

If Obama went full Native Son, he'd be removed in the same way. This isn't a "we don't want to sleep in the bed we made." It's a "the linens we used turned out to be infested with spiders."

I'm just glad both sides blame America for this. The protestors are holding up anti-Obama messages accusing America of backing Morsi the same way we did Mubarak. Morsi has suggested that any success the protestors have is a sign the West is trying to stamp out the Muslim Brotherhood and is manipulating events in Egypt. In other words, both sides are butthurt over their belief we masterminded a dispute we had jack all to do with.

Let's see how the military deals with this: go the democratic route again, or decide to forgo the appearance that they haven't been running the country they've been keeping up for decades.

This is not a coup. A coup suggests a framework in which a strong military decides to take over a previously independent government.

This is more a situation where before the Arab Spring, the actual power of Egypt was the military, after it, the actual power of Egypt was the military, and with the removal of Morsi, the actual power of Egypt will be the military.

It is somewhat similar to discussions of Iran electing a reformer president, which sounds heartening until you realize that the actual power both before, during and after Ahmadinejad was always the Supreme Cleric.

odinsposse:His name is محمد محمد مرسى عيسى العياط . All of those different spellings are different ways of transliterating Arabic letters. Since there is no formal and universal method for doing that all of those spellings are acceptable.

His name is Muhammad Muhammad? [checks Wiki] Yep, He's Muhammad Muhammad Morsi. Name so nice they named him twice, I guess.

/Took Arabic in college//Only remember the alphabet///Slashies come in threes

I never thought a Islamist government would work well in Egypt. Egyptian identity is something that far pre-dates Islam by thousands of years, and it looms like a mighty shadow over everything in Egypt, and it is destroying tourism. Unlike many other Arab countries, Egyptians are have deep roots in another heritage that has no roots in the British partitioning. Cheops is not amused.

Tommy Moo:What started all this? Does anyone remember? Was he cracking down on dissent? Was he ignoring the needs of the poor? I thought this was the guy that got elected by the people just a couple of years ago.

Cato:IlGreven: netweavr: If Obama went full Native Son, he'd be removed in the same way

...with our citizenry the way it is? The president could admit to wanting to drop a nuke on NYC, and most Americans would go "Eh, he's the President. What can you do?"

And half the country would claim it was only partisan racists that were making a big deal out if it. We're toast.

More like the center and left would be outraged, the right would try to make it all about Obama because they like the idea of nuking NYC and just don't want to eat shiat for it, and when this was pointed out the center and left would all be accused of being in the can for President Fart.

that bosnian sniper:Amos Quito: You'll know that REAL change is taking place when (and if) Egypt stops cooperating with Israel's siege on Gaza, and Israel starts telling the US to bomb Cairo.

Won't ever happen. Egypt and Israel love their $3 billion in cash and prizes for not blowing each other straight to hell too much to start squabbling, sparing some huge development beyond the purview of either country.

Which was kind of my point: The raging spoiled brat we call Israel will get its money in any case.

Egypt's money, OTOH, is and always has been the "carrot" portion of the "carrot and stick" used to convince them to play nice with Israel, and to allow them to continue to oppress the Palestinians unmolested.

Your tax dollars go to both Egypt AND Israel so that the latter can be unopposed dickheads.

Amos Quito:You'll know that REAL change is taking place when (and if) Egypt stops cooperating with Israel's siege on Gaza, and Israel starts telling the US to bomb Cairo.

Won't ever happen. Egypt and Israel love their $3 billion in cash and prizes for not blowing each other straight to hell too much to start squabbling, sparing some huge development beyond the purview of either country.

Frankly, I've been baffled every since back when the old Egyptian Supreme Court ruled that the process of writing the new constitution was unconstitutional according to the old constitution. I thought Egyptians showed remarkable restraint in not dragging the judges out into the desert and shooting them until nothing bigger than a falafel was left intact.

AlanSmithee:HighOnCraic: I worry that if the Egyptian citizens go to battle against the Egyptian armed forces, they'll be like lambs led to slaughter, and Egyptian medics will only be able to provide meatball surgery on the survivors, and that would be simply terrible.

HighOnCraic: I worry that if the Egyptian citizens go to battle against the Egyptian armed forces, they'll be like lambs led to slaughter, and Egyptian medics will only be able to provide meatball surgery on the survivors, and that would be simply terrible.

IlGreven:So, what you're saying is, until Egyptians go after the military, it will continue being like this?

Well, it's like I just explained to my mother...the ideology of the military, contrasted with the civilian government and a majority of the citizenry, is similar to that in Pakistan. A military coup is still a coup, being that it's an ousting of a civilian government by the military, and this is a military coup no matter how you cut it...but considering who they are and who they ousted? I can't say I'm shedding too many tears at the moment.

And now the Ultra-Islamist party farther to the right than the MB is throwing its efforts behind the military too. I think this is a categorical exclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood from the secular sides, the mainstream Islam and Christian forces and now the Ultra-Islamists too with the military.

Rapmaster2000:I need to know what is bad here and why it's Obama's fault.

It's bad because if someone wins a slim majority in an election that is consent for them to literally have sex with your unlubricated anus for the next four years, and if you do anything about it except vote against them next time it's a violation of stuff.

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo:The problem with the legitimacy issue and comparing it to a stable democracy is that Morsi was actively trying to undermine the process that put him in office. He rewrote the constitution and was well on the way to making himself President-for-life. That's not how democracy works, the majority doesn't get to run roughshod over the minority.

Why are they calling this a coup? It seems to me that the military is enforcing the will of the people. If they don't hold free elections afterwards it could then be considered a coup. Right now it looks like the military is more interested in public safety than taking power.

RealAmericanHero:No doubt, but given that the current party in office is pretty Islamist leaning

The Muslim Brotherhood is actually a loose confederation of different sub-groups, some of which are more Islamist than others. The historical fact is that secularism has a really bad reputaion in Egypt precisely because its associated with the Mubarak dictatorship. It is not associated with political or personal freedom. Its a fundamentally different experience with secularism than in the United States. You can't expect them to interpret secularism as "freedom" in some American sense.

So, a democratically-elected leader violates the country's constitution, then says it doesn't apply to him, the population challenges his actions and legitimacy en masse, and then the military says time for a do-over.

WTF Indeed:what_now: But he was democratically elected. You can't have a democracy if you decide "Oh, I don't like that guy. We'll just have the military oust him".

You elected a bad guy? You get a do over in 4 years.

There is a difference between "I don't like your public policy, so here's a coup" and "You're systematically eliminating anyone in government that could say no to you and rewriting the Constitution to suit your needs, while organizing attacks on Coptics and other Muslim sects."

Sounds like their Constitution sucks if it allows a sitting President to change things so easily.

Jake? Is that you? Wow, man. Long time, no see. I'm almost nostalgic for you given the quality of the trolling on this site recently. Hope all is well. I like the angle you've taken--with the protest signs and all. That should liven things up around here.

KarmicDisaster:Who are we supposed to be rooting for here again? I need a scorecard to tell the sides apart. One weird thing about all those people demonstrating; no women. Any women venturing out would be attacked and raped by either side; what a great culture, huh? Really hard to sympathize with either point of view.

One group wants a secular democracy, and the other group wants a fundamentalist Islamist dictatorship. I don't see how it's hard to pick a side, unless you are really suggesting everyone anti-Morsi is a rapist.

tuna fingers:HighOnCraic: Seriously, what is the beef that the Egyptian protesters have with Morsi?I've been trying to keep abreast of the situation, and I fully acknowlege how serious it is. They're just massing together in a huge blob, stirring up trouble unnecessarily. The whole thing seems a bit fishy to me. Sure, I know his budget is filled with pork, which makes it hard to make ends meet.Is murdering him really a viable solution? Acting like a bunch of gang-bangers will only undermine their cause in the international media. I can understand why people don't trust the Muslim Brotherhood; I've been to several of their parties, and they were all just sausage-fests. I worry that if the Egyptian citizens go to battle against the Egyptian armed forces, they'll be like lambs led to slaughter, and Egyptian medics will only be able to provide meatball surgery on the survivors, and that would be simply terrible. I'll be frank, if Hillary Rodham Clinton were still the secretary of state, she could go there and deliver a solution, because she's a woman who knows how to bring home the bacon, but I'm sure some of you doubt that some crabby old hag is capable of accomplishing anything. You're all just full of boloney! Maybe John Kerry will give it a shot, doggedly working day and night until peace is established, or maybe he'll just wing it. I wish some moderate writer in the Middle East, maybe someone like Salmon Rushdie, would speak out on this issue; unfortunately, they're all too chicken. I guess they just don't want to gamble when the steaks are this high. Finding a peaceful solution is nothing to knock, worst-case-scenario, Morsi will just duck the issue and run off to retire in Turkey. But the bottom line is, violent protests are not the answer to the Egyptian problem; I would do anything for my love of freedom, but I won't do that.If any of you farkers want to discuss this with me, my e-mail address is in my profile; just don't fill up my inbox with spam.

devildog123:buckler: I sometimes wish our military had the same resolve when Bush the Lesser was in power.

You do realize what party the large majority of military personnel vote for, right? I'll give you a hint. Walk into most military gyms or PX food courts with TVs, and they will be tuned to Fox News, or maybe ESPN. The military is just a tad more conservative than you seem to think it is.

Yeah, I know. I was, when I joined, liberal-leaning, as I am now. It's one reason I never engaged in political talk with anyone except those I knew personally and trusted.

PC LOAD LETTER:HighOnCraic: Seriously, what is the beef that the Egyptian protesters have with Morsi?I've been trying to keep abreast of the situation, and I fully acknowlege how serious it is. They're just massing together in a huge blob, stirring up trouble unnecessarily. The whole thing seems a bit fishy to me. Sure, I know his budget is filled with pork, which makes it hard to make ends meet.Is murdering him really a viable solution? Acting like a bunch of gang-bangers will only undermine their cause in the international media. I can understand why people don't trust the Muslim Brotherhood; I've been to several of their parties, and they were all just sausage-fests. I worry that if the Egyptian citizens go to battle against the Egyptian armed forces, they'll be like lambs led to slaughter, and Egyptian medics will only be able to provide meatball surgery on the survivors, and that would be simply terrible. I'll be frank, if Hillary Rodham Clinton were still the secretary of state, she could go there and deliver a solution, because she's a woman who knows how to bring home the bacon, but I'm sure some of you doubt that some crabby old hag is capable of accomplishing anything. You're all just full of boloney! Maybe John Kerry will give it a shot, doggedly working day and night until peace is established, or maybe he'll just wing it. I wish some moderate writer in the Middle East, maybe someone like Salmon Rushdie, would speak out on this issue; unfortunately, they're all too chicken. I guess they just don't want to gamble when the steaks are this high. Finding a peaceful solution is nothing to knock, worst-case-scenario, Morsi will just duck the issue and run off to retire in Turkey. But the bottom line is, violent protests are not the answer to the Egyptian problem; I would do anything for my love of freedom, but I won't do that.If any of you farkers want to discuss this with me, my e-mail address is in my profile; just don't fill up my inbox with spam.

Personally, I don't think Morsi should be overthrown because he is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, or because his victory over more secular opponents "proves" that he "cheated," somehow.

I think he should be overthrown because he set Egypt on a direct course to economic suicide that will, even with full humanitarian assistance, lead to starvation of a significant portion of the population, violated his own constitution to do so, and surrounded himself with sufficient armed forces loyal to himself rather than to Egypt that a military coup is the least damaging option to impose rule of law.

/even a president must obey the law//and a constitution that becomes a suicide pact must be repealed

HighOnCraic:Seriously, what is the beef that the Egyptian protesters have with Morsi?I've been trying to keep abreast of the situation, and I fully acknowlege how serious it is. They're just massing together in a huge blob, stirring up trouble unnecessarily. The whole thing seems a bit fishy to me. Sure, I know his budget is filled with pork, which makes it hard to make ends meet.Is murdering him really a viable solution? Acting like a bunch of gang-bangers will only undermine their cause in the international media. I can understand why people don't trust the Muslim Brotherhood; I've been to several of their parties, and they were all just sausage-fests. I worry that if the Egyptian citizens go to battle against the Egyptian armed forces, they'll be like lambs led to slaughter, and Egyptian medics will only be able to provide meatball surgery on the survivors, and that would be simply terrible. I'll be frank, if Hillary Rodham Clinton were still the secretary of state, she could go there and deliver a solution, because she's a woman who knows how to bring home the bacon, but I'm sure some of you doubt that some crabby old hag is capable of accomplishing anything. You're all just full of boloney! Maybe John Kerry will give it a shot, doggedly working day and night until peace is established, or maybe he'll just wing it. I wish some moderate writer in the Middle East, maybe someone like Salmon Rushdie, would speak out on this issue; unfortunately, they're all too chicken. I guess they just don't want to gamble when the steaks are this high. Finding a peaceful solution is nothing to knock, worst-case-scenario, Morsi will just duck the issue and run off to retire in Turkey. But the bottom line is, violent protests are not the answer to the Egyptian problem; I would do anything for my love of freedom, but I won't do that.If any of you farkers want to discuss this with me, my e-mail address is in my profile; just don't fill up my inbox with spam.

Muhammad Badie (Arabic: محمد بديع Muḥammad Badīʿ, IPA: [mæˈħæmmæd bæˈdiːʕ]) (born 1943) is the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood.[1] He has headed the Egyptian branch of the international Islamist organization since 2010. Before becoming general guide, Badi'e had been a member of the group's governing council, the Guidance Bureau, since 1996.

Mohammed Khairat Saad El-Shater[1] (Arabic: محمد خيرت سعد الشاطر, IPA: [mæˈħæmmæd ˈxæjɾæt ˈsæʕd eʃˈʃɑːtˤeɾ]; born 4 May 1950) is an Egyptian engineer, businessman and Islamist political activist. He was the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate for the Egyptian presidential election in 2012 before disqualification by the election commission. Previously, he was the deputy chairman ("deputy supreme guide") of the Brotherhood.

Remember when people said the Muslim Brotherhood would be "taking over" the country?

Now their leaders are under house arrest. Democracy is beautiful.

And now the same people are weeping that Obama let the democratically elected leadership of Egypt get overthrown. Hopefully many in the region are put off by the party after their short rule and pursue a more secular alternative (though to be fair, their biggest failures are on an economic level and have zilch to do with the religious authoritarian bent they were trying to write into the Constitution.)

durbnpoisn:I need a few questions answered - and I'm serious about this, because I am completely lost on this, thanks to the crap reporting.

1. How did this guy get to be President? Was he truly elected?2. What's he done to piss off millions of people in his country, including the military?3. Why does the media keep saying they are a "key ally"4. How much oil do the have, and how much are the selling to the US.5. Who is this fight between (that is, are the protesters the Muslims, or the other side)?

Yes he was elected, and the economy is shiat. That's the real issue. All the political and religious crap is window dressing for western audiences.

Kurohone:I think the best (and most likely) outcome is that in a decade or so we have a Turkey-style democracy, where there are multiparty, free and fair elections, but with the military sitting off to the side making damn sure that all Islamist influences are scrubbed out.

Muhammad Badie (Arabic: محمد بديع Muḥammad Badīʿ, IPA: [mæˈħæmmæd bæˈdiːʕ]) (born 1943) is the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood.[1] He has headed the Egyptian branch of the international Islamist organization since 2010. Before becoming general guide, Badi'e had been a member of the group's governing council, the Guidance Bureau, since 1996.

Mohammed Khairat Saad El-Shater[1] (Arabic: محمد خيرت سعد الشاطر, IPA: [mæˈħæmmæd ˈxæjɾæt ˈsæʕd eʃˈʃɑːtˤeɾ]; born 4 May 1950) is an Egyptian engineer, businessman and Islamist political activist. He was the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate for the Egyptian presidential election in 2012 before disqualification by the election commission. Previously, he was the deputy chairman ("deputy supreme guide") of the Brotherhood.

Remember when people said the Muslim Brotherhood would be "taking over" the country?

I was just scanning through the Wikipedia articles on this and found this (properly sourced) quote by Obama from two days ago:

Now, obviously, we've been watching these big protests. Our number-one priority has been making sure that our embassies and consulates are protected. Number two, what we've consistently insisted on is that all parties involved -- whether it's members of Mr. Morsi's party or the opposition -- that they remain peaceful.

Kurohone:what_now: netweavr: Tommy Moo: What started all this? Does anyone remember? Was he cracking down on dissent? Was he ignoring the needs of the poor? I thought this was the guy that got elected by the people just a couple of years ago.

He was turning the nation into a terrorist factory. He was also exploiting the countries resources for Western-interests.

Basically he was playing both sides against the middle. The middle being the Egyptian people.

But he was democratically elected. You can't have a democracy if you decide "Oh, I don't like that guy. We'll just have the military oust him".

Satanic_Hamster:DarnoKonrad: No it's not. Morsi got a majority of votes and his party got a majority of seats. That means you make the rules. And I wouldn't be quick to *assume* the protestors represent a popular movement.

Getting 50.01% of the vote doesn't mean you can have all your opponents executed then raped.

I really hate this attitude among some people that winning an election means you have unlimited permission to do whatever you want without any consequence.

Hyperbole on your part. Morsi's real problem is the economy. Don't fool yourself. "People rise up against evil Muslim leader" is a narrative western minds understand, which is why it's pushed, but it doesn't represent the complexities of the situation.

DarnoKonrad:netweavr: If Obama went full Native Son, he'd be removed in the same way. This isn't a "we don't want to sleep in the bed we made." It's a "the linens we used turned out to be infested with spiders."

No it's not. Morsi got a majority of votes and his party got a majority of seats. That means you make the rules.

Really? I thought most democratic countries had was something called "checks and balances" that said otherwise.

More like confirmation bias. Remember the Iran threads? To this day there is *zero* evidence of election manipulation, and indeed, in retrospect Amadeenajad was the moderate candidate. That all gets lost in western narratives. The Muslim Brotherhood has been active for *decades.* It would be really foolish to act like their base of power evaporated in a few months.

cameroncrazy1984:what_now: FrancoFile: Tommy Moo: What started all this? Does anyone remember? Was he cracking down on dissent? Was he ignoring the needs of the poor? I thought this was the guy that got elected by the people just a couple of years ago.

And then changed the constitution to make Egypt a semi-theocracy.

Right. It's almost like when you elected the leader of the "Muslim Brotherhood" you'd get religious laws. I understand that this guy is over reaching and needs to go, and I also get that Egypt isn't going to turn into a democratic state overnight, but the people who are all "WOOOO DEMOCRACY WORKS" are farking crazy.

I look at this as more like the transition between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

with a dash of military?

They have a strong stable generally non-partisian governmental institution thats pro-people in place that actually doesn't want that power... and its pro-US as well...

Since it's about a week before Ramadan, the famous month of "Save a little room for desert, in fact don't eat all day, we be feasting all night" the Egyptians would like some time off for some grocery shopping without the Mormon Brotherhood messing everything up.

Is it me or is anybody else feeling a bit jealous that Egypt as a country got off it's ass and made a change? This is coming from a conservative, not aiming at current administration but at our whole "fark you because we can" government.

what_now:netweavr: what_now: netweavr: Tommy Moo: What started all this? Does anyone remember? Was he cracking down on dissent? Was he ignoring the needs of the poor? I thought this was the guy that got elected by the people just a couple of years ago.

He was turning the nation into a terrorist factory. He was also exploiting the countries resources for Western-interests.

Basically he was playing both sides against the middle. The middle being the Egyptian people.

But he was democratically elected. You can't have a democracy if you decide "Oh, I don't like that guy. We'll just have the military oust him".

You elected a bad guy? You get a do over in 4 years.

If Obama went full Native Son, he'd be removed in the same way. This isn't a "we don't want to sleep in the bed we made." It's a "the linens we used turned out to be infested with spiders."

I understand that, but what's the end game here? Who takes over? The military? Then its not democracy. Is there another guy waiting in the wings? not that I've heard. Do they hold new elections? When? who rules in the meantime?

Theoretically there's a roadmap already laid out. There will be an interim ruling technocracy body and elections in the near future (I could be remembering incorrectly).

DarnoKonrad:netweavr: If Obama went full Native Son, he'd be removed in the same way. This isn't a "we don't want to sleep in the bed we made." It's a "the linens we used turned out to be infested with spiders."

No it's not. Morsi got a majority of votes and his party got a majority of seats. That means you make the rules. And I wouldn't be quick to *assume* the protestors represent a popular movement.

If you start making rules that changes the game, don't be surprised when people stop playing.

The protests have been estimated in the millions in a country that numbers less than 100 million. I think it's safe to call it a popular movement.

cameroncrazy1984:what_now: netweavr: what_now: netweavr: Tommy Moo: What started all this? Does anyone remember? Was he cracking down on dissent? Was he ignoring the needs of the poor? I thought this was the guy that got elected by the people just a couple of years ago.

He was turning the nation into a terrorist factory. He was also exploiting the countries resources for Western-interests.

Basically he was playing both sides against the middle. The middle being the Egyptian people.

But he was democratically elected. You can't have a democracy if you decide "Oh, I don't like that guy. We'll just have the military oust him".

You elected a bad guy? You get a do over in 4 years.

If Obama went full Native Son, he'd be removed in the same way. This isn't a "we don't want to sleep in the bed we made." It's a "the linens we used turned out to be infested with spiders."

I understand that, but what's the end game here? Who takes over? The military? Then its not democracy. Is there another guy waiting in the wings? not that I've heard. Do they hold new elections? When? who rules in the meantime?

Sometimes democracy is messy. Seems like these people would rather they get to choose who rules than Morsi.

Yes, but they CHOOSE Morsi.

I get that he's a dick- I'm not saying he's not- but what happens when the get the next guy, and HE pisses off a faction of the military?

WTF Indeed:what_now: I understand that, but what's the end game here? Who takes over? The military? Then its not democracy. Is there another guy waiting in the wings? not that I've heard. Do they hold new elections? When? who rules in the meantime?

The military(Trained and educated in the US) have been holding meetings with all the other groups in the nation on a transitional government.

great! Maybe they'll get a good guy to rule Egypt. But he'll be there as a result of a military coup, not an election.

Tommy Moo:What started all this? Does anyone remember? Was he cracking down on dissent? Was he ignoring the needs of the poor? I thought this was the guy that got elected by the people just a couple of years ago.

Biggest thing from a moralist point of view: he put out decrees back in November that said the courts were not allowed to despute the legality of his decrees.

Bigges thing from the realist point of view: the economy is in the can, tourism is dead, unemployment is through the roof, inflation is rampant, and he's not seen as doing anything about it. It's like the reason the Arab Spring happened in the first place: nothing was a larger factor than the price of bread doubling in a matter of weeks. The Middle Eastern leaders who survived it either found a way to address the problems politically (Saudi Arabia) or cracked down on dissidents as hard as they could.

what_now:netweavr: Tommy Moo: What started all this? Does anyone remember? Was he cracking down on dissent? Was he ignoring the needs of the poor? I thought this was the guy that got elected by the people just a couple of years ago.

He was turning the nation into a terrorist factory. He was also exploiting the countries resources for Western-interests.

Basically he was playing both sides against the middle. The middle being the Egyptian people.

But he was democratically elected. You can't have a democracy if you decide "Oh, I don't like that guy. We'll just have the military oust him".

You elected a bad guy? You get a do over in 4 years.

Robespierre was elected. Saint-Just was elected.

Being elected isn't protection for being a bad guy. Making the people who elected you think you're improving their lives is. Morsi thought he could follow the Karzai plan by winning an 'election' and then ruling like a dictator. But he doesn't have the confidence of any group to actually do that, and it's encouraging that the military seems to be resisting being bought off this time.

what_now:netweavr: what_now: netweavr: Tommy Moo: What started all this? Does anyone remember? Was he cracking down on dissent? Was he ignoring the needs of the poor? I thought this was the guy that got elected by the people just a couple of years ago.

He was turning the nation into a terrorist factory. He was also exploiting the countries resources for Western-interests.

Basically he was playing both sides against the middle. The middle being the Egyptian people.

But he was democratically elected. You can't have a democracy if you decide "Oh, I don't like that guy. We'll just have the military oust him".

You elected a bad guy? You get a do over in 4 years.

If Obama went full Native Son, he'd be removed in the same way. This isn't a "we don't want to sleep in the bed we made." It's a "the linens we used turned out to be infested with spiders."

I understand that, but what's the end game here? Who takes over? The military? Then its not democracy. Is there another guy waiting in the wings? not that I've heard. Do they hold new elections? When? who rules in the meantime?

Sometimes democracy is messy. Seems like these people would rather they get to choose who rules than Morsi.

FrancoFile:Tommy Moo: What started all this? Does anyone remember? Was he cracking down on dissent? Was he ignoring the needs of the poor? I thought this was the guy that got elected by the people just a couple of years ago.

And then changed the constitution to make Egypt a semi-theocracy.

Right. It's almost like when you elected the leader of the "Muslim Brotherhood" you'd get religious laws. I understand that this guy is over reaching and needs to go, and I also get that Egypt isn't going to turn into a democratic state overnight, but the people who are all "WOOOO DEMOCRACY WORKS" are farking crazy.

what_now:I understand that, but what's the end game here? Who takes over? The military? Then its not democracy. Is there another guy waiting in the wings? not that I've heard. Do they hold new elections? When? who rules in the meantime?

The military(Trained and educated in the US) have been holding meetings with all the other groups in the nation on a transitional government.

netweavr:what_now: netweavr: Tommy Moo: What started all this? Does anyone remember? Was he cracking down on dissent? Was he ignoring the needs of the poor? I thought this was the guy that got elected by the people just a couple of years ago.

He was turning the nation into a terrorist factory. He was also exploiting the countries resources for Western-interests.

Basically he was playing both sides against the middle. The middle being the Egyptian people.

But he was democratically elected. You can't have a democracy if you decide "Oh, I don't like that guy. We'll just have the military oust him".

You elected a bad guy? You get a do over in 4 years.

If Obama went full Native Son, he'd be removed in the same way. This isn't a "we don't want to sleep in the bed we made." It's a "the linens we used turned out to be infested with spiders."

I understand that, but what's the end game here? Who takes over? The military? Then its not democracy. Is there another guy waiting in the wings? not that I've heard. Do they hold new elections? When? who rules in the meantime?

the government gets overthrowna sudden force,a major blowover out,the new comes incoup d'éatgive me a bomba molotovit's a coup d'éat!the generalisimo sets up shopstep out of lineyour neck's on the blockarmies marching through the streetsdressed so sharp,dressed so neatcoup d'éatcoup d'éatfirst the president then his wifewe'll take them for ransonor take their livesattack their embassythey are our enemiesel presidente smokes cigarswhoever he does not likehe shoots or put behind barscoup d'éatcoup d'éat

Tommy Moo:What started all this? Does anyone remember? Was he cracking down on dissent? Was he ignoring the needs of the poor? I thought this was the guy that got elected by the people just a couple of years ago.

Egyptians aren't happy with their quality of life hence why they're protesting yet again. There's going to be a giant diaspora soon of Egyptians emigrating to the United States and the United Kingdom. 80 million Egyptians is a lot. I would see about 10-20% leaving the country soon if Civil War broke out.

netweavr:Tommy Moo: What started all this? Does anyone remember? Was he cracking down on dissent? Was he ignoring the needs of the poor? I thought this was the guy that got elected by the people just a couple of years ago.

He was turning the nation into a terrorist factory. He was also exploiting the countries resources for Western-interests.

Basically he was playing both sides against the middle. The middle being the Egyptian people.

But he was democratically elected. You can't have a democracy if you decide "Oh, I don't like that guy. We'll just have the military oust him".

Tommy Moo:What started all this? Does anyone remember? Was he cracking down on dissent? Was he ignoring the needs of the poor? I thought this was the guy that got elected by the people just a couple of years ago.

I think when he came out and said the Egyptian constitution doesn't apply to him was the beginning of the end but yeah economics and crime/corruption are hurting him too.

Glendale:This happens so much over there I don't even give a shait anymore.

This is only the second time in quite a while that Egypt has tried to change power. The first being from a dictator to a democracy, and now being "hey you suck at democracy, Morsi and MB, let's fix this/Nuh uh the MB is fine ignore the protests." It's not like this happens every 3 years or something.

You'd biatch about it either way, that's for certain."Wah wah wah, Muslims have took over Egypt.""Wah wah wah, military has removed the Muslim dictator that was fairly elected, wah wah wah."

To be fair, sometimes all paths out of a terrible situation are, themselves, terrible. If this gets it through the collective consciousness of their leaders that elected doesn't mean all-powerful, then there's hope for the next election. I'm not sure I believe that.

Tommy Moo:What started all this? Does anyone remember? Was he cracking down on dissent? Was he ignoring the needs of the poor? I thought this was the guy that got elected by the people just a couple of years ago.

He was turning the nation into a terrorist factory. He was also exploiting the countries resources for Western-interests.

Basically he was playing both sides against the middle. The middle being the Egyptian people.